Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1887-12-06
PROHIBITION.
Important Decision by the
Supreme Court.
STATE RIGHTS DEFINED.
The Power to Prohibit the Manu-
facture of IntOxicants
Recognized.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD.

Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD.
WASHINGTON, December 5.-Justice
Harlan, of the Supreme Court, in his
decision in the so-called prohibition
cases of Mugler against Zeibold and
others, said in part: "The general
question in each case is whether the
prohibition statutes of Kansas are in
conflict with the fourteenth amendment
of the Constitution of the United
States. 1t is commended that no con-
vention nor legislature has the right
under our form of government to pro
hibit any citizen from manufacturing
for his own use or for export or stor-
age any article, food or drink not az
fecting the rights of others. A certain
right is guaranteed citizens by con-
stitutional amendment. 1t is con.
sidered right to manufacture drink
for personal use, and the condition of
such manufacture is that it does not
endanger the rights OF OF hers, in which
case it follows that society has the
power
TO PROTECT ITSELF
BY legislation against the injurious
consequences of that business. Mum
against Ellingers, "a, U. S. 124. By
what authority is it to be determined
whether the manufacture of particular
articles of drink, either for personal
or general use, will injuriously affect
the public? The power to determine
Ruch questions must exist somewhere
Under our system that power is lodged
with the legislative branch of the gov
eminent, AID as the court must obey
the constitution rather than the law
making departments of the govern
ment, it must upon its responsibility
determine whether in any particular
Ease the Legislature has TRANSFER deh
the limits of its authority. 1t is
difficult
TO PERCEIVE ANY GROUND
For iudicially declaring prohibition by
Kansas of the manufacture or sale
within her limits of Intoxicating
liquors for general use, unconstitu-
tional. II the State deems the abso-
lutte prohibition and manufacture
within it Of Intoxicating liquors nee
-essary to peace and society, the courts
cannot override the will Of the people
thus expressed by their chosen repre-
sentat,ves. Prohibition of the man
ufacture or sale of liquor does not
deprive liquor dealers Of their prop.
erty without due process OF law, and
it is evident that since all property
under our form of government is sub
ject to obligation it shall not be used
to injuriously affect the rights of any
community. The State of Kansas
had a right to prohibit the liquor traf-
fic but this did not the eby take away
the property of brewers, it simply
abated the nuisance.
DECREE OF THE COURT.
"For the reasons stated" says JUS
tice Harlan, 1--WE are of opinion that
Mugler, plaintiff in error, has not been
denied by the judgments of the u
preme Court of Kansas any right,
privilege or immunity secured to him
by the Constitution of the United
States, and its Judgment in each case
is accordingly affirmed. We are also
of opinion that the Circuit Court of
the United States erred in Diminishing
the bill Of the State in the suit against
Feibold and Hagelin. The decree in
that case is reversed and caused re-
manded, and such relief granted as
the act of March 7th, 1885, author
ICES.
JUSTICE FIELDS OPINION.
Justice Field concurred in the opin-
ion so lar as it related to the two cases
in which the State OF Kansas was de-
PENDANT, but dissented as to the cause
of the State of Kansas VS.. Zeibold.
He agreed to so much OF the opinion
as sustains the validity of the act of
Kansas prohibiting the sale OF intoxi-
cants which are manufactured in the
State after the passage of the act. He
was not prep red to say that the pro-
hibition of the manufacture of such
liquors if intended for exploration can
be sustained nor that the State can
forbid the sale under proper regua-
tons for the protection of the health
and morals OF the people OF any article
which Congress may aut orize to b.
imported. Neither could he concur
in the validity of the 18th section of
the prohibition act of Kansas, because
he believed it authorized the destruc-
ton of property without due process